ANALYSIS OF CASE SUMMARIES

CHAPTER FOUR
In this chapter, we analyze our case summaries, focusing on applicable law
and the patterns and practices of human rights abuses. Our analyses focus
on the following topics: The characteristics of the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI’s) actual investigation, abuse of police powers,
implications of the use of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)
Act (TADA) on the notion of criminality, custodial torture, role of the Indian
armed forces, violations of property rights, complicity of the lower judiciary,
and the issues of medico-legal ethics.
punjab_report_chapter4.p65 159 4/27/03, 10:32 PM
160 Reduced to Ashes
punjab_report_chapter4.p65 160 4/27/03, 10:32 PM
Analysis of Case Summaries 161
The CBI’s Three Lists of Illegal Cremations
The faults we found with the CBI’s investigation are weighty; they go beyond mere
technical problems and raise fundamental questions regarding the integrity of the
institution’s approach to this matter of illegal cremations. Some critical questions,
prompted by a comparison of the Committee for Coordination on Disappearances
in Punjab (CCDP’s) data with the information contained in the CBI’s lists, are:
n A large number of those cremated were clearly named by the Punjabi press.
Why did the CBI fail to identify them?
n Families of many victims spoke with the CBI officials and also filed information
at their office in Amritsar. Why did the CBI fail to use that information
while compiling its lists of cremations?
n In many cases, the police handed the bodies to the families and the cremations
were carried out at their villages without the police presence. Why did the CBI
record these cremations as having been carried out by the police?
n Finally, did the CBI purposefully conceal the identities of some of the people it
included on its third list of unidentified cremations?
This note will first present the basic information on the classification of cremations
in to three lists and will then discuss some of the technical, procedural and
moral problems that arise from an examination of the CBI’s lists.
Details of the Lists
According to the CBI, cremation of 2,098 bodies under three police stations of the
Amritsar district, namely Taran Taran, Amritsar and Majitha, could be classified
into three lists: 582 cremation of identified bodies, 278 of partially identified and
1,238 unidentified cremations. Though the National Human Rights Commission
(NHRC) and the Supreme Court orders show a slight variation in the numbers we
use these numbers because they represent the current status of the CBI’s lists.
The lists reveal irregular gaps in time between police cremations which, in the
absence of any explanation, are incomprehensible.
The list of 582 identified bodies under Tarn Taran police district starts with two
cremations carried out by Verowal and Patti police stations on 6 July 1984 and 21
July 1984. The third cremation on the list, with a gap of two years and 10 months,
is dated 10 May 1987. There are a total of five cremations in the year 1987; one in
May, another in July and two in October. The first cremation in 1988, under Tarn
Taran police district, is dated 29 February 1988 and the list shows a total of 23
punjab_report_chapter4.p65 161 4/27/03, 10:32 PM
162 Reduced to Ashes
cremations in that year. The cremations for other years are: 33 in 1989; 43 in 1990;
48 in 1991; 124 in 1992; 53 in 1993 and one in 1994.
Under Amritsar police district, the identified list shows the first cremation on 18
April 1988. The second cremation is dated 2 June 1988. The third cremation under
Amritsar police district, with a gap of more than 10 months, is dated 28 April 1989
and the list shows a total of four cremations in that year. The two cremations in
1990 are dated 30 August and show a gap of more than one year against the preceding
cremation on the list dated 7 July 1989. The cremations for other years are: 23
in 1991; 37 in 1992 and two in 1993.
The first cremation on the list under Majitha police district is dated 3 October
1987. The second cremation is dated 24 October 1987 and the third cremation, with
a gap of more than eight months, is dated 8 July 1989. The list shows a total of 13
cremations in 1989. For 1990, the list shows only four cremations; the first one on
28 February, the second on 22 March, the third, with a gap of six months, on 27
September and the fourth on 11 December 1990. The cremations for other years
are: 38 in 1991; 98 in 1992; 24 in 1993 and one in 1994.
The list of 278 partially identified bodies under Tarn Taran shows only one
cremation in 1984 dated 07 August. The second cremation, with a gap of two-anda-
half years, is dated 7 February 1987 and there are a total of five cremations in 1987;
one in February, another in March, two in May and one in December. The first cremation
in 1988, with a gap of more than seven months, is dated 25 July 1988, and there
are a total of three cremations that year. The cremations for other years are: three in
1989; 14 in 1990; 33 in 1991; 49 in 1992; eight in 1993 and one in 1994.
Under Amritsar police district, the list shows three cremations in 1984, two of
them on the 11 August and one on the 12 August, carried out by Sadar police station.
The next cremation on the list was carried out on 18 September 1987. The list
shows two cremations in 1987, both carried out by C-Division police station on 18
September and 5 October. The list then jumps to 26 March 1988, leaving a gap of
more than five-and-a-half months, and there are a total of 10 cremations in that
year. The cremations for other years are: three in 1989; three in 1990; 17 in 1991;
21 in 1992 and two in 1993.
Under Majitha police district, the first two cremations are dated 8 October 1987,
carried out by Beas police station. The next two cremations on the list, with a gap of
five-and-a-half months, are dated 24 March 1988. Yet another cremation in 1988,
with its total of three, is dated 3 May 1988. The first cremation in 1989, with a gap
of more than nine months took place on February 16 followed by 14 cremations
later in the year. The number of cremations that took place in other years are: five in
1990; 22 in 1991; 42 in 1992 and 12 in 1993.
The first cremation on the unidentified list of 1,238 cremations under Tarn
Taran police district is dated 8 October 1984, and is, carried out by Bhikhiwind
police station. The second cremation, with a gap of nearly two years and nine months,
is dated 1 July 1987. The list shows a total of 10 cremations in 1987 under Tarn
Taran police district. The cremations for other years are: 18 in 1988; 52 in 1989;
102 in 1990; 209 in 1991; 188 in 1992; 59 in 1993 and four in 1994.
Under Amritsar police district, the list shows a total of 22 cremations in 1984;
18 of them took place in June, the month in which the Indian army carried out the
Operation Blue Star. Three of them, carried out by Kotwali ‘E’ Division police
punjab_report_chapter4.p65 162 4/27/03, 10:32 PM
Analysis of Case Summaries 163
station, are listed on the 2 June 1984; two, carried out by Chheharta police station,
are on the 4 June 1984 and 12, carried out by Sadar police station, took place on 5
June 1984. One more cremation took place on 27 June 1984. Clearly, all these
cremations are linked to the deaths that occurred in the course of the assault on the
Golden Temple of Amritsar. The list also shows two cremations in August and one
in November. With a gap of more than nine months, the list then shows two cremations
on 16 and 19 August 1985, then again with a gap of nine months a cremation
on 2 May 1986, and two more cremations carried out by Sadar police station on 25
May 1986. The cremations for other years are: 15 in 1987; 23 in 1988; six in 1989;
42 in 1990; 75 in 1991; 51 in 1992 and 12 in 1993.
Under Majitha police district, the list shows four cremations in 1984; the first,
carried out by Jandiala police station on 5 June 1984, the second, carried out by Beas
police station, on August 14, and two other cremations, by Lopoke police station, on
20 September 1984. The list then jumps to two cremations carried out by Kathunangal
police station on 26 March 1986, with a gap of one-and-a-half years, and showing a
total of five cremations in that year. The cremations in other years are: 33 in 1987; 19
in 1988; 43 in 1989; 59 in 1990; 81 in 1991; 70 in 1992 and 28 in 1993.
Illustrative Case
We will use the case of Manjinder Singh, included in the CBI’s list of partially
identified cremations, to raise some of the preliminary problems with the information
contained in the lists.1 Twenty-four-year-old Manjinder Singh, son of Thakar
Singh and Gurnam Kaur, was a constable in the Punjab police and resident of Pakho
Ke village. He was unmarried.
After completing his higher secondary school, Manjinder joined the Government
Physical College at Patiala for a diploma in sports training. In school, Manjinder
had excelled at volleyball and participated in competitive matches at the inter-state
level. Due to his sports record, Manjinder was selected for the Punjab police while
he was still completing his diploma at the Patiala college.
In 1992, Manjinder returned to his village on leave and did not report back to
duty. He was under pressure from several relatives who had been threatened by the
militants to make him give up the police service. He had also received indirect
threats to quit the police department if he cared to protect his parents’ safety.
Manjinder decided not to endanger their lives and stayed away from the department.
Soon, he began to receive letters from his department to report back to duty,
but he ignored the letters.
On 28 or 29 April 1992 Manjinder went to Jandiala Guru town for some shopping
and, in the market, he met Gurdev Singh, son of Harbans Singh, and Major
Singh, son of Jagir Singh, both from his village. Their meeting was coincidental
and they walked together to one Bira Singh’s watch repair shop. The Jandiala Guru
police, led by SHO Udham Singh, arrested Manjinder and his companions in the
market while one of them was getting his watch fixed. The police blindfolded all of
them and took them away in a police vehicle.
Manjinder’s sister Gurnam Kaur was also in the market and, noticing the
1 CCDP/01148, Sl. No. 396/58
punjab_report_chapter4.p65 163 4/27/03, 10:32 PM
164 Reduced to Ashes
commotion, she found out that the police had abducted her brother and two others
from her village. A large number of people had witnessed the abduction and, since
Pakho ke was very close to Jandiala town, the news of the abduction soon reached
Manjinder’s parents.
Manjinder’s brother Surjit Singh rushed to the Jandiala Guru police station and
learnt that the police had taken all the three persons arrested by the SHO to Amritsar’s
Mall Mandi interrogation center. The family members tried to make inquiries at the
Mall Mandi interrogation center but no responsible officer spoke to them. The
Jandiala Guru police registered a case against Major Singh but they did not acknowledge
the arrests of Manjinder and Gurdev.
On 7 May 1992, Manjinder’s family members read a report in the newspaper Ajit,
which announced his death in an encounter near village Dala Kalan. Another militant
named Gurdev Singh Bhutoo was also reported killed. The encounter had allegedly
occurred when the police took them for the recovery of weapons. The report quoted
police officials as suggesting that some militants lying in ambush attacked the police
vehicle and, in the ensuing exchange of fire, both Manjinder and Gurdev died. The
police had already cremated the bodies at the Durgiana Mandir cremation ground on
6 May 1992. The families collected the ashes from the cremation ground.
The newspaper reports about the encounter clearly identified both Manjinder
and Gurdev Singh and spoke about only two killings. The CBI’s identified list shows
the cremation of Gurdev Singh on 6 May 1992, whereas Manjinder’s cremation
figures in the CBI’s second list of partially identified cremations. In this entry, the
CBI gives the wrong name for Manjinder’s father; his father’s correct name is Thakar
Singh. Also, surprisingly, the CBI’s list of unidentified cremations, under Sl. No.
397/259 and 398/260, shows two additional cremations carried out by the Jandiala
police on 6 May 1992 under the same first information report (FIR) No. 62/92.
These entries suggest that either the police killed more than two persons in this
alleged encounter or the police cremated two others not involved in the encounter
under the same FIR.
Manjinder’s elder brother Sharanjit Singh told the CCDP members that several
CBI officers had visited his house to make inquiries after the Supreme Court ordered
an investigation into the matter of secret cremations. According to Sharanjit,
the officers recorded detailed statements from all of the families connected with
this episode. Sharanjit also claimed to have seen a CBI inspector traveling with
SHO Udham Singh, one of the accused in these abductions and killings. According
to him, Udham Singh’s gunmen talked to the shopkeepers in Jandiala town and told
them not to admit to having witnessed the abductions.
This case highlights three of the issues that will be discussed below:
1. Incorrect names and addresses in the CBI’s lists;
2. Failure of the CBI to further investigate the additional people cremated under
the same FIR numbers; and
3. Questionable behavior of the CBI officials.
Failure to Properly Identify People
Being the premier investigative body of India, the CBI could easily have accessed
punjab_report_chapter4.p65 164 4/27/03, 10:32 PM
Analysis of Case Summaries 165
victim families, eye-witnesses, newspaper reports and police records for its investigation
of the illegal cremations. Here are two simple examples of where the CBI
could have used these resources to more fully identify people cremated by the police:
n The police killed both Dalbir Singh and his son Teja Singh in the same encounter.
However, their names do not appear on the same list. The CBI recorded the
father’s cremation in the fully identified list under Sl. No. 2/57, but placed his
son Teja Singh on the partially identified list under Sl. No. 8/56. Although newspaper
reports about the encounter only identified Dalbir Singh, a simple interview
with the surviving family members could easily have revealed all the necessary
facts.
n Under Sl. No. 3/008 of the identified list, the CBI mentions 10 May 1987 as the
day of cremation of Virsa Singh, killed in an encounter along with Mangal Singh
and Satnam Singh. The newspaper reports clearly identified all three men. However,
the CBI chose to place the cremations of Mangal Singh and Satnam Singh
on the partially identified list, under Sl. Nos. 4/07 and 5/09. Also, contrary to
the information carried in the newspaper reports, the CBI further incorrectly
identified Mangal Singh’s village.
In many cases, family members and newspapers reported that more people died
in the same alleged encounter than included on the CBI’s lists. Does this mean that
the police cremated more than one person per pyre and the CBI, by relying entirely
on the police records of the cremations, failed to capture this misdemeanor? Alternatively,
does this mean that the police disposed of the other bodies through methods
other than illegal cremation?
For example, the families fully identified the bodies of Mohinder Singh and his
four colleagues before their cremation. The CBI lists Mohinder Singh and three of
those killed with him on their identified list, (Sl. Nos. 66/160 to 68/162). None of
the three lists, however, includes his fourth colleague, Dilbagh Singh’s, cremation.
It is not clear what happened to Dilbagh Singh’s body.
The CBI’s records on the cremations of Jounga Singh and Gurnam Singh, under
Sl. Nos. 506/140 and 509/142 of its identified list, question how the CBI verified its
facts. The CBI records two cremations on 27 September 1992 that of Jounga Singh,
son of Dayal Singh, resident of Lakhantappa, and of Gurnam Singh, son of Swaran
Singh, resident of Kala Bakra, carried out by ASI Ranjit Singh of Jandiala police.
The CCDP members visited Lakhan Tappa and discovered that no one by the name
of Jounga Singh had died or disappeared from that village during the period of the
unrest in Punjab. The committee also discovered that there is no village called Kala
Bakra, allegedly the residence of Gurnam Singh. It is not clear how the CBI justifies
including these records on its identified list.
Contradictions or Discrepancies in Data
The CBI has presented its lists of cremations without reconciling some basic contradictions
in its data. They have not shown, for example, how and why the cremations
of persons killed separately was reported under the same FIR number, how
and why cremations of persons killed together was mentioned under different FIR
numbers, or what happened to the bodies of other persons reportedly killed in the
same encounter but not included on the CBI lists.
punjab_report_chapter4.p65 165 4/27/03, 10:32 PM
166 Reduced to Ashes
The testimony of the family of a victim and the newspaper reports show that
Sukhchain Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were killed together in an encounter under
Valtoha police station. The CBI shows the cremation of Sukhchain Singh in its first
list under Sl. No. 104/296. The cremation of Mukhtiar Singh, mentioned in the
partially identified list, under Sl. No. 24/297, is shown to have been undertaken two
weeks later by another police officer and police station. In fact, the FIR number of
Mukhtiar Singh’s cremation matches the FIR number of cremation of two others,
Bagal Singh and Gurdeep Singh Mehra under Sl. Nos. 25/301 and 26/302. How do
we reconcile these differences?
In a similar FIR muddle, the CBI list includes two cremations done by SHO
Darshan Singh of Tarn Taran’s Sadar police station on 9 May 1992 under FIR No.
34/92. (Sl. Nos. 177/676 and 178/677) Under that same FIR number, SHO Darshan
Singh mentioned two more cremations two weeks later on 24 May 1992. (Sl. Nos.
179/680 and 180/681). Why were the cremations of all four persons mentioned
under the same FIR number, by the same police officer, listed different dates?
These examples and the questions they generate require the CBI to explain how
it conducted its investigations, what sources it relied on, and what methodology it
used to investigate illegal cremations conducted by the police. The CBI must provide
explanations for the discrepancies in its data. The summaries include references
to many more such confusing examples.
Empty Records
The CCDP’s data reveals three categories of cremations recorded by the CBI that
could not have taken place: (1) Cremations duplicated on more than one list; (2)
Cremations purportedly carried out by the police that were actually conducted by
family members; and (3) Cremations recorded on dates when, according to the
family sources, the victims were alive.
Duplicates
The CCDP’s investigations revealed two major errors of duplication in the CBI’s
lists. The cremation of Niranjan Singh, s/o Boor Singh, r/o Behla, is included in the
fully identified list under Sl. No. 121/392 as having occurred on 18 April 1991.
The CCDP spoke to Balwinder Kaur, Niranjan Singh’s widow, and learnt that he
had actually been killed on 9 June 1992 when the security forces used him as a
human shield to take out three militants who had taken shelter in an abandoned
house at Behla. In fact, the CBI’s partially identified list correctly shows Niranjan
Singh’s cremation on 9 June 1992 listed under Sl. No. 71/705. Thus, the cremation
recorded under Sl. No. 121/392 of the CBI’s identified list could not have been that
of Niranjan Singh, son of Boor Singh, resident of Behla.
Niranjan Singh’s example encapsulates the CBI’s failure to use witness testimony
and newspaper accounts to resolve cremations even in well known cases.
Niranjan Singh had died along with six others used by the security forces as human
shield to storm a militant hideout. The incident resulted in nine deaths. The CBI’s
partially identified list shows five cremations. Three cremations figure in the identified
list. The cremation of Gurmej Singh, one of the six villagers forced to become
a human shield and killed in the process, does not figure in any list.
punjab_report_chapter4.p65 166 4/27/03, 10:32 PM
Analysis of Case Summaries 167
The CBI also appears to have duplicated the record of Angrez Singh’s cremation.
The CBI has fully identified him under Sl. No. 392/78 as the son of Charan
Singh and resident of Jalalabad. The CCDP visited Charan Singh and recorded his
statement regarding the death of Angrez Singh. At no point did he mention another
son named Amrik Singh. However, under Sl. No. 391/56, the CBI’s partially identified
list shows the cremation of Amrik Singh, son of Charan Singh, as having
occurred on the same date and mentioned under the same FIR. If this record is not
a duplication, then who was Amrik Singh, son of Charan Singh?
People Not Cremated by the Police
The CBI’s identified and partially identified lists show at least 25 cremations that
were actually carried out by the families. The case of Amrik Singh, son of Gurmej
Singh Mahajan and resident of Ratoke, is one example that also shows how the CBI
failed to conduct even a cursory examination of facts.2 Amrik Singh, a mason by
profession, was married to Joginder Kaur with two sons, Gurnam Singh and Nishan
Singh. He focused on his work, commuting between his home and worksite on his
bicycle. He reportedly had no political or militant connection and had never been
arrested or interrogated prior to his killing.
On 9 August 1988 morning, Amrik Singh, as usual, left for his work-site in
village Dasuwal where he was building a drainage system. Around 9 a.m., when
Amrik and his colleagues had just started attending to their work, the Valtoha police,
led by SI Mohinder Singh, got involved in an exchange of fire with a group of
militants. The police chased the militants, firing at them. One of the bullets fired by
the police hit Amrik Singh in his head and he died instantaneously. His family
learnt about his killing around 11 a.m. when Valtoha police took Amrik’s father
Gurmej Singh down to the site to identify the body. The police officers expressed
regret and admitted that they had killed an innocent man by mistake.
The next morning, after the post-mortem, the police handed the body over to the
family members for the cremation, which was carried out in their village. However,
the following day, the newspapers published a report, on the basis of a police handout,
stating that the police had killed a militant in an encounter at Dasuwal village.
Amrik’s family members had neither the resources nor the necessary contacts to
challenge the lie and, fearing further reprisals, they decided to keep quiet.
The CBI seems to have adopted the police version in its totality, without consulting
other sources of information.
Families who Submitted Complaints to the CBI
In these cases, the families themselves filed complaints and provided the CBI with
all information needed to identify their loved one’s cremations. The CBI, however,
failed to fully and properly identify these people in its lists. Why did the CBI fail to
record the information personally provided to it? Was there a lack of communication
between the different offices of the CBI?
After the police killed his son in a fake encounter, Gurmit Singh personally
went to the CBI’s temporary office in Amritsar to submit his complaint. CBI inspector
P. C. Sharma also visited the family’s home and recorded the statement of
2 CCDP/01573, Sl. No. 22/52
punjab_report_chapter4.p65 167 4/27/03, 10:32 PM
168 Reduced to Ashes
Gurmit Singh’s wife Narinder Kaur several times. Despite these efforts, the CBI
included the cremation of their son on its unidentified list under Sl. No. 537/304.
Unidentified List
The CBI’s competence becomes further questionable by a perusal of the cremations
listed as unidentified. In many cases, the CBI easily could have referred to
press reports, police records, testimony of family members and even information
available in its own files to complete the identifications. Out of the cremations the
CCDP has been able to identify from the CBI’s unidentified list, six were those of
police officers, one cremated person’s father was a police officer who had resigned
in protest against rampant human rights abuses within the department. In 10 cases,
the press reports clearly identified the cremations, in five cases, the families filed
complaints and information with the CBI officials, two were soldiers of the Indian
Army and two others were prominent leaders of the community. More people
could have been identified through autopsy reports seen by families, identification
cards on bodies, and other such methods.
The CBI’s failure to identify these cremations raises very basic questions about
its integrity in investigating this matter.
Failures of this Procedure
In many cases, the CBI investigators actually visited the families to obtain testimonies
and then chose to ignore them. The families were, thus, exposed to harassment
of the local police.
Boota Singh was threatened with serious consequences if he pursued the extrajudicial
execution of his son Baldev Singh, a soldier of the army, with the CBI.3
SHO Harbhajan Singh of Chherharta police station, who had abducted Baldev Singh,
detained Boota Singh several times, offering him a “compromise”. Boota Singh
reported these incidents to the CBI officials who visited his house to make their
inquiries. They assured him that he would be protected and promised to prosecute
the guilty. On those assurances, the CBI officials took with them Baldev’s identity
card and other papers connected with the case, like copies of telegrams that Boota
Singh had sent to Baldev’s commanding officer. Boota Singh never heard from the
CBI officials again.
Concluding Case Study
This note will conclude with the case of Udham Singh and his family’s pursuit for
justice from the CBI.4 Sixty-two-year-old Udham Singh, son of Gajjan Singh, was
a respected farmer of Thathgarh village under Jhabal police station in Tarn Taran
subdivision of Amritsar district. He was locally known as ‘Akali’ because of the
contributions of his grandfather Kala Singh and uncle Arjan Singh to the Sikh
religious reform movement in the 1920s that witnessed the birth of the Akali Dal
and the formation of the Sikh Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) in 1925.
3 CCDP/01268, Sl. No. 479/127
4 CCDP/01293, Sl. No. 313/50
punjab_report_chapter4.p65 168 4/27/03, 10:32 PM
Analysis of Case Summaries 169
Udham Singh was married to Gurmej Kaur and had five children, three daughters
and two sons.
Udham Singh was deeply involved in Sikh religious affairs in his area and took
part in the organization of important events of the Sikh religious calendar. Tarn
Taran police had raided his house a number of times out of the suspicion that persons
connected with the militant movement visited his house. The police had once
detained Udham Singh and his sons, Heera Singh and Hazura Singh, for interrogation.
They were later released.
On 1 July 1992, around 4 or 5 in the morning , a large group of Punjab police
officers raided Udham Singh’s house, entering it after scaling the walls. ASI Dilbagh
Singh of Jhabal police station was one of the police officers. Police arrested Udham
Singh and his son Hazura Singh and took them away to B. R. Model School interrogation
center. Despite loud protest and repeated questioning by Udham Singh’s
daugher Rajwant Kaur and Hazura Singh’s wife Ranjit Kaur the police officers did
not say where they were taking the arrested persons.
At the interrogation center, Udham Singh and Hazura Singh were locked up
separately. Hazura Singh does not know what they did to his father. On 7 July 1992,
the police released Hazura Singh from the interrogation center. The same day newspapers
reported the killing of Udham Singh in an encounter that allegedly occurred
the night between 5 and 6 July 1992. The police did not inform the family about the
cremation.
In 1996, some CBI officers approached the family in connection with their investigation
into the illegal cremations matter, as ordered by the Supreme Court.
Although the CBI officers did not disclose the purpose of their inquiries, Heera
Singh gave all of the details of the case. Around this time, Dilbagh Singh, one of the
police officers from Jhabal responsible for Udham Singh’s abduction on 1 July
1992, also approached the family and offered a large sum of money for a compromise
on the matter. But the family declined the offer and threatened to report it to
the CBI. At this, Dilbagh Singh went away with the words, “Alright! We will then
pay the same money to the CBI officers.”
Later, the family members came to know that the CBI had filed a closure report
in the case. Heera Singh once visited the CBI’s court at Patiala and met the officials
responsible for the prosecution of the culpable Punjab police officials. They told
him that the legal action was not possible as there was no evidence. They also took
Heera Singh’s signatures on some statements that were written in English and which
he could not read. The family members suspected that the police officers responsible
for Udham Singh’s abduction and murder in a fake encounter bribed the CBI
officers responsible for the investigation.
The CBI had presented its closure report in this case, No. R. C. 9(S)/97/SI.UXVI/
JMU, on 1 October 1999 before the CBI court in Patiala. The court, vide its
order dated 16 February 2000, took the view that the investigating agency should
make further efforts to identify the abductors of Udham Singh. The CBI then presented
a supplementary closure report on 29 September 2000, which said that no
fresh evidence was forthcoming and the case should therefore be closed.
The CBI’s closure reports are a surprise since Hazura Singh had been abducted
along with Udham Singh on 1 July 1992 morning. Hazura Singh was held at the B.
R. Model School interrogation center till the July 7, the day after the Sadar police
punjab_report_chapter4.p65 169 4/27/03, 10:32 PM
170 Reduced to Ashes
carried out Udham Singh’s cremation. The B. R. Model School Interrogation center,
which operated under the direct authority of Amritsar’s senior superintendent
of police (SSP), was well known as a place where terrible atrocities were committed
in the course of interrogating illegally detained persons before they were liquidated
in fake encounters.

Report | Database | Backgrounder |Articles | Legal Battles | Interviews | Links |Get Involved |
News |Advocacy | About us | Home | Search this site |
Copyright©CIIP